Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST

[JoeMoma]

Japan has the right idea. They know they need to take care of their own first. They are willing to send money so the refugees can be helped elsewhere. And where they should be helped is in Arab countries.

Soros is behind the protests against the ban on refugees. Soros wants open borders and one world government, something the left denied for years. There are some extremely radical people now in the U.S. who support Soros's idea and are willing to do anything to make it reality. While the majority of people support the refugee ban, the minority who is out there protesting are getting all the attention from media.

We need to take care of our own first. Starbucks announced that they'll hire 10,000 refugees. Not like all Americans already have jobs but they will favor the non-English speaking refugees. I hope people boycott them.

We can't afford to bring more people here when we have homeless people. Why does the left favor hurting our own just to go along with Soros's radical vision?


"UNITED NATIONS – Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa.

He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval. But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants”

– Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

He said Japan first needed to attend to domestic challenges which he proposes to tackle under a revamped economic policy that aims to boost GDP to a post-war record level, while bolstering the social security system to support families.

“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities…"

Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST - Freedom's Final Stand

Japan has it right. I'm sure citizens of countries in Europe wish their damned Govts. hadn't let those refugees in.

I'm glad our President has tightened up the vetting for anyone coming into our country. I wish they wouldn't let any of them in. We taxpayers support more that enough in this country and we sure as shit don't need to bankroll refugees.

The 800,000 DACA group already has attained a higher level of education and economic success than your average US Citizen. BTW we don't bankroll them.

Link?

 

[theHawk]

Japan has the right idea. They know they need to take care of their own first. They are willing to send money so the refugees can be helped elsewhere. And where they should be helped is in Arab countries.

Soros is behind the protests against the ban on refugees. Soros wants open borders and one world government, something the left denied for years. There are some extremely radical people now in the U.S. who support Soros's idea and are willing to do anything to make it reality. While the majority of people support the refugee ban, the minority who is out there protesting are getting all the attention from media.

We need to take care of our own first. Starbucks announced that they'll hire 10,000 refugees. Not like all Americans already have jobs but they will favor the non-English speaking refugees. I hope people boycott them.

We can't afford to bring more people here when we have homeless people. Why does the left favor hurting our own just to go along with Soros's radical vision?


"UNITED NATIONS – Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa.

He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval. But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants”

– Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

He said Japan first needed to attend to domestic challenges which he proposes to tackle under a revamped economic policy that aims to boost GDP to a post-war record level, while bolstering the social security system to support families.

“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities…"

Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST - Freedom's Final Stand

There problem here is that Japan didn't go to war in Iraq, Japan didn't destablize the Middle East region. Japan didn't support rebels in Syria. Therefore Japan has every right not to let people in.

The US on the other hand.....

The US didn't destabilize the Middle East either, their own inhabitants have a way of doing that on their own. Even if we did, it doesn't mean we give up the right to choose who we allow to immigrate into our country.

Oh, oh, oh, the US didn't destablize the Middle East.

Right, so, Bush didn't invade Iraq.

Bush didn't turn around and give Paul Bremer total power as leader of Iraq. Bremer didn't get rid of the Iraqi armed forces and police and making thousands upon thousands of young men with families unemployed. He didn't make a power vacuum that was filled by insurgents who turned into groups like ISIS.

The US didn't push the Arab Spring.

I really do wish I lived in your fantasy world, but unfortunately I live in the reality where the US is the world's bullyboy.

You seem to be forgetting some events, like a Saddam invading Kuwait. Or Saddam violating the cease fire terms from that war.

The worst we ever did to destabilize was Carter's fuck ups. Refusing to hand over that Islamic puppet piece of shit and allowing our citizens to be held hostage for over a year, THAT was a cluster fuck. Thank God for Ronald Reagan getting elected and the Iranians quickly released them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Japan has the right idea. They know they need to take care of their own first. They are willing to send money so the refugees can be helped elsewhere. And where they should be helped is in Arab countries.

Soros is behind the protests against the ban on refugees. Soros wants open borders and one world government, something the left denied for years. There are some extremely radical people now in the U.S. who support Soros's idea and are willing to do anything to make it reality. While the majority of people support the refugee ban, the minority who is out there protesting are getting all the attention from media.

We need to take care of our own first. Starbucks announced that they'll hire 10,000 refugees. Not like all Americans already have jobs but they will favor the non-English speaking refugees. I hope people boycott them.

We can't afford to bring more people here when we have homeless people. Why does the left favor hurting our own just to go along with Soros's radical vision?


"UNITED NATIONS – Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa.

He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval. But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants”

– Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

He said Japan first needed to attend to domestic challenges which he proposes to tackle under a revamped economic policy that aims to boost GDP to a post-war record level, while bolstering the social security system to support families.

“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities…"

Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST - Freedom's Final Stand

There problem here is that Japan didn't go to war in Iraq, Japan didn't destablize the Middle East region. Japan didn't support rebels in Syria. Therefore Japan has every right not to let people in.

The US on the other hand.....

The US didn't destabilize the Middle East either, their own inhabitants have a way of doing that on their own. Even if we did, it doesn't mean we give up the right to choose who we allow to immigrate into our country.

Oh, oh, oh, the US didn't destablize the Middle East.

Right, so, Bush didn't invade Iraq.

Bush didn't turn around and give Paul Bremer total power as leader of Iraq. Bremer didn't get rid of the Iraqi armed forces and police and making thousands upon thousands of young men with families unemployed. He didn't make a power vacuum that was filled by insurgents who turned into groups like ISIS.

The US didn't push the Arab Spring.

I really do wish I lived in your fantasy world, but unfortunately I live in the reality where the US is the world's bullyboy.

You seem to be forgetting some events, like a Saddam invading Kuwait. Or Saddam violating the cease fire terms from that war.

The worst we ever did to destabilize was Carter's fuck ups. Refusing to hand over that Islamic puppet piece of shit and allowing our citizens to be held hostage for over a year, THAT was a cluster fuck. Thank God for Ronald Reagan getting elected and the Iranians quickly released them.

And why do you think I'm forgetting events? So I didn't write about every single thing that ever happened in the world. Er... maybe I don't think they're relevant.

No one is saying the Saddam was great. Not many were sad to see him go. That, quite frankly, isn't my point at all, hence why I didn't need to bring this stuff up.

If you get rid of Saddam, at least have a plan to make sure the region stays stable, or just don't do it. It doesn't take a genius to see what would happen if you make thousands and thousands of men unemployed in a volatile region with Sunnis and Shi'tes vying for power, or replacing their jobs with foreigners.

Also I have reasont to believe that Bush actually wanted to cause chaos in the region for his own political gain, and that the rise of ISIS is very convenient for the right, and the terror acts in Europe are very convenient for the right too.

It could all be a nice little novel.

 

[theHawk]

Also I have reasont to believe that Bush actually wanted to cause chaos in the region for his own political gain, and that the rise of ISIS is very convenient for the right, and the terror acts in Europe are very convenient for the right too.

It could all be a nice little novel.

You're thinking of Obama. Bush at least tried to stabilize the area with a democratic government. Obama supported several revolutions throughout the Middle East against long standing regimes that never attacked us. There was Libya, Egypt, and of course Syria. All of which greatly destabilized each country and the Middle East as a whole. But that is exactly what Obama and his globalist masters wanted: never ending wars to cause the "refugee crisis" in order to flood Europe with Muslim barbarians from third world shit holes. The Hussein and his masters are delighted to see these barbarians cause a great strain on European countries, from every day rapes of women and children, to terrorists attacks on tourists. All thanks to the Hussein.

 

[Thinker101]

Japan has the right idea. They know they need to take care of their own first. They are willing to send money so the refugees can be helped elsewhere. And where they should be helped is in Arab countries.

Soros is behind the protests against the ban on refugees. Soros wants open borders and one world government, something the left denied for years. There are some extremely radical people now in the U.S. who support Soros's idea and are willing to do anything to make it reality. While the majority of people support the refugee ban, the minority who is out there protesting are getting all the attention from media.

We need to take care of our own first. Starbucks announced that they'll hire 10,000 refugees. Not like all Americans already have jobs but they will favor the non-English speaking refugees. I hope people boycott them.

We can't afford to bring more people here when we have homeless people. Why does the left favor hurting our own just to go along with Soros's radical vision?


"UNITED NATIONS – Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa.

He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval. But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants”

– Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

He said Japan first needed to attend to domestic challenges which he proposes to tackle under a revamped economic policy that aims to boost GDP to a post-war record level, while bolstering the social security system to support families.

“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities…"

Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST - Freedom's Final Stand

There problem here is that Japan didn't go to war in Iraq, Japan didn't destablize the Middle East region. Japan didn't support rebels in Syria. Therefore Japan has every right not to let people in.

The US on the other hand.....

The US didn't destabilize the Middle East either, their own inhabitants have a way of doing that on their own. Even if we did, it doesn't mean we give up the right to choose who we allow to immigrate into our country.

Oh, oh, oh, the US didn't destablize the Middle East.

Right, so, Bush didn't invade Iraq.

Bush didn't turn around and give Paul Bremer total power as leader of Iraq. Bremer didn't get rid of the Iraqi armed forces and police and making thousands upon thousands of young men with families unemployed. He didn't make a power vacuum that was filled by insurgents who turned into groups like ISIS.

The US didn't push the Arab Spring.

I really do wish I lived in your fantasy world, but unfortunately I live in the reality where the US is the world's bullyboy.

You seem to be forgetting some events, like a Saddam invading Kuwait. Or Saddam violating the cease fire terms from that war.

The worst we ever did to destabilize was Carter's fuck ups. Refusing to hand over that Islamic puppet piece of shit and allowing our citizens to be held hostage for over a year, THAT was a cluster fuck. Thank God for Ronald Reagan getting elected and the Iranians quickly released them.

And why do you think I'm forgetting events? So I didn't write about every single thing that ever happened in the world. Er... maybe I don't think they're relevant.

No one is saying the Saddam was great. Not many were sad to see him go. That, quite frankly, isn't my point at all, hence why I didn't need to bring this stuff up.

If you get rid of Saddam, at least have a plan to make sure the region stays stable, or just don't do it. It doesn't take a genius to see what would happen if you make thousands and thousands of men unemployed in a volatile region with Sunnis and Shi'tes vying for power, or replacing their jobs with foreigners.

Also I have reasont to believe that Bush actually wanted to cause chaos in the region for his own political gain, and that the rise of ISIS is very convenient for the right, and the terror acts in Europe are very convenient for the right too.

It could all be a nice little novel.

Let me guess, you have an unnamed source.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Also I have reasont to believe that Bush actually wanted to cause chaos in the region for his own political gain, and that the rise of ISIS is very convenient for the right, and the terror acts in Europe are very convenient for the right too.

It could all be a nice little novel.

You're thinking of Obama. Bush at least tried to stabilize the area with a democratic government. Obama supported several revolutions throughout the Middle East against long standing regimes that never attacked us. There was Libya, Egypt, and of course Syria. All of which greatly destabilized each country and the Middle East as a whole. But that is exactly what Obama and his globalist masters wanted: never ending wars to cause the "refugee crisis" in order to flood Europe with Muslim barbarians from third world shit holes. The Hussein and his masters are delighted to see these barbarians cause a great strain on European countries, from every day rapes of women and children, to terrorists attacks on tourists. All thanks to the Hussein.

Bush went in to Iraq. The plan that had been agreed for the post war period was that two people would take over control of the country as the CPA. Originally it was Jay Gardner from 21st April 2003 until 11th May. Not very long. Then Bremer was appointed. Gardner's dismissal was a surprise to most, and the fact they had agreed to have an Arab working more or less at diplomacy as join leadership of the CPA to give better perspective of what the Iraqis might be thinking.

But Bush went just with Bremer. Bremer's first act was to "de-Ba'athify" the country. The meant disolving the Iraqi Army and Police. Disaster. Now, was this done to try and stop Saddam having any power with his old guard? Was it done out of sheer incompetence? Or was it done as a tactic to destabilize the country?

The problem was that even after it became evident that Iraqi insurgents were basically people looking to earn a living, they didn't really try and get these people on their side. They tried to build an armed force but only amounted to 40,000 troops. The problem was that the insurgents had a lot more. It was still a disaster.

The fact that Bush went in believing something that wasn't true, was another major problem. They should never have believed they'd be liberators. Anyone with any idea about Iraq would have realized that.

Also, that the Iraqi troops were taking the money, but they weren't willing to fight was another major fuck up.

Yes, Obama supported the Arab Spring. Another American fuck up. I'm not just blaming Bush, I'm blaming America as a whole.

Bush started it all, Bush set the problems in place. A president can have a massive impact to fuck up, but to fix things they're quite limited because often the solutions go way beyond their terms in office, and they require the next guy to carry on. But Obama did things, like Libya, which was a big fuck up too.

The problem is, the overlords are controlling the presidents and the people's thoughts. Trump isn't controlled as much, however he's just bumbling around without a clue of what direction to take.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Obama Administration told US we had nothing to worry about and that the incoming Syrians would be fully vetted. Can any liberal on this board differentiate between "vetted" and "profiled"?

 

[bripat9643]

Japan has the right idea. They know they need to take care of their own first. They are willing to send money so the refugees can be helped elsewhere. And where they should be helped is in Arab countries.

Soros is behind the protests against the ban on refugees. Soros wants open borders and one world government, something the left denied for years. There are some extremely radical people now in the U.S. who support Soros's idea and are willing to do anything to make it reality. While the majority of people support the refugee ban, the minority who is out there protesting are getting all the attention from media.

We need to take care of our own first. Starbucks announced that they'll hire 10,000 refugees. Not like all Americans already have jobs but they will favor the non-English speaking refugees. I hope people boycott them.

We can't afford to bring more people here when we have homeless people. Why does the left favor hurting our own just to go along with Soros's radical vision?


"UNITED NATIONS – Japan’s prime minister said Tuesday that his nation needs to attend to its own demographic challenges posed by falling birth rates and an aging population before opening its doors to refugees.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the U.N. General Assembly that Japan is ramping up assistance in response to the exodus of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and Africa.

He said Japan will provide $1.5 billion in emergency aid for refugees and for stabilization of communities facing upheaval. But speaking to reporters later Tuesday he poured cold water on the idea of Japan opening its doors to those fleeing.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants”

– Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

He said Japan first needed to attend to domestic challenges which he proposes to tackle under a revamped economic policy that aims to boost GDP to a post-war record level, while bolstering the social security system to support families.

“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities…"

Japan Absolutely REFUSES To Let In Syrian ‘Refugees’, says it must look after its own citizens FIRST - Freedom's Final Stand

And for the last 20 years Japan has been mired in an economic slow moving disaster of stagflation and minimal GDP growth.

That's because of limiting immigration? You have a long row to hoe to make that case.

 

[ColonelAngus]

vetting is racist...don't forget.